professor laura donahue on how the foreign intelligence surveillance court operates. "washington journal those quote is next -- "washington journal" is next. ♪ good morning. resident and mrs. obama departing this morning for northern -- president and mrs. obama departing this morning from the white house to germany. here in washington, the senate continues to debate the immigration bill and the house will be taking up the abortion bill this week. it is sunday, june 16. happy father's day. two dominant issues this week for the g-8 summit, the nsa reports on phone records and now u.s. assistance in syria. two issues will be focusing on today on the washington journal -- on "washington journal."

is syria the president's third ward? -- third war? our lines are open -- you can also join us on facebook or twitter. our twitter account is @cspanwj facebook.com/c-span. is this the president's third war? it is available online at nationaljournal.com the president signaled he is unwilling to put american boots on the ground.

judging from the latest signals, the president wants this newly announced military aid to the syrian rebels to be kept on a stringent minimum, and he wants to be seen as part of a broader western aid effort. the issue is whether the president is deluding himself whether he can limit his involvement that way. the title is "slip sliding towards america's third ward." some of you have already weighed in on our facebook page. this point -- we will get to your calls and comments in just a moment. on friday, one of the president 's national security advisers spoke to reporters about this latest development has white house officials indicated that serious had crossed the so- called red line. what sticky to friday's

briefing. [video clip] >> as a general matter, bashar al-assad has been rejected by significant majorities of his people. that is not a genie you can put back in the bottle. we do not think there is anyway for the syrian regime to prevail thatis conflict in a way maintain security for them because the leader has no legitimacy among his people. , on the momentum question, ultimately we still believe there is not a scenario we can perceive her bashar al-assad can remain in power in a country that so clearly rejects his role and in international community that probably rejects his role, even as he has had some basis of support. in terms of the timeline, these are not the types of steps we have taken to increase our support for the opposition -- these are not steps the president takes likely -- likely. thatr one, we need to know

there is a cohesive and coherent opposition we can work with. one year ago, the opposition was not nearly as advanced in terms of having a political soc, that wase broadly representative of the syrian people. there was not an organized supreme military council on the ground. what you had was far more disparate groups of opposition partners in the country. that type of organized opposition was not in existence. we have been able to develop our own relations with the opposition and seek to do things to isolate the more extremist elements of that opposition. we are doing this for a variety of reasons, including the fact that there needs to be a consequence for a regime that uses chemical weapons and the opposition on the ground needs additional support, given the dire situation of a regime that used chemical weapons and has

this type of foreign fighters support. what measures have been put frontnt that the al-nusra will not take power? >> that is why we support a moderate opposition. there is a big focus on the military side of things. the national security team in the white house speaking to reporters on friday about this latest of element with regard to syria. some developments over the last 48 hours. according to the jerusalem post, iran reportedly will send 4000 revolutionary guard troops to syria to fight alongside syrian president assad's forces. the decision was taken late last week prior to friday's iranian presidential electric -- election. the independent newspaper has quoted pro-iranian forces.

is part of an effort to preserve assad's regime in syria. that story morning from the jerusalem post website. on our facebook page, it you can join the recession, patrick has this point -- tracy says -- our twitter page has this with regard to syria -- let's get to your calls. gary is joining us from virginia, the republican line. caller: good morning. in my junior high school in seventh grade, i had a history teacher who was a world war ii

veteran. , never get involved in the civil war, never upset the balance of power, and your enemies enemy is your friend. i think that still holds true today. i wish i had said this before we had gone into iraq. what we are getting involved in is in fact a civil war, and i believe the arab league should take responsibility for this. the sunnis and shia is, they got to get it together. contrary to what glenn beck says, there is no chance of a muslim caliphate the way they are fighting one another. they've got to stop this. i would also like to complement and congratulate the pakistan army for chasing the taliban out of the valley. truly one of the most beautiful

places in the world. those people, they grow food. that is one of the highest callings a man can have. host: thank you for the call from sterling, virginia. bill has this point on our twitter page -- from the front page of the "new york times" that headline from the front page of the "new york times." focusing on the elections in iran. our reform leader has been elected, a shia clerics avoiding

a runoff -- cleric avoiding a runoff. bacteria calls, john joins us from new york city, the independent line. is syria the president's third war? caller: this is a comment about serious, but for someone -- syria, but for someone who has visited the middle east for the company i used to work for -- i am retired now -- building up to my syria comment, we tend to look at these events one at a time as opposed to a big picture. if i could help paint that picture, united states being in

iraq and afghanistan flanked iran. from there, we conduct operations inside pakistan. syria pretty much as a highway to supply arms to lebanon. lebanon lobs those arms into israel, who vows to go wipe out iran's nuclear capabilities. israel is surrounded now by syria, has a lot -- hezbollah, ands in the west bank egypt. syria is firing russian-made missiles into turkey, which the u.s. is committed to defend. german nato soldiers in turkey are lobbing missiles back into syria near a russian naval base.

hezbollah is in south america. al qaeda has attacked america, london, madrid, germany, indonesia. i guess my question is, is serious -- syria really the first front in world war iii? at the same time, north korea has threatened to attack america's pacific bases. i'm not rambling. all of these things are happening sort of simultaneously could i am a naval academy graduate. ,or the first time in history the russian-chinese-iranian navies are conducting joint exercises in the mediterranean sea. s list these other individual

-- more than one people dead are in the wars in central africa. host: we appreciate your voice to the conversation. we are basing this on the piece in the "national journal." a lot is written in the papers about syria. it will be a key topic of conversation as the president heads to northern ireland for the g-8 summit, including meetings with russian president blattner putin. here is another portion from the piece they have enjoyed a free hand in the face of obama's limited response, which until now, has amounted to civilian and medical aid. in the west, the nato nations

especially france and britain are waiting for washington to take the lead. secretary of state kerry concluded in january that the u.s. was late in getting involved. the story is available online at nationaljournal.com. is syria the president's third war? caller: good morning. i have been a lifelong conservative. i am a republican. i never voted for either george bush or barack obama. when i heard that george bush was running for office, i told my father, this is the death knell of conservatism. now we have new conservatives in both parties -- neoconservatives in both parties. obama is more of a neoconservative than liberal.

they want perpetual war for perpetual peace. i understand why. the u.s. economy is based on militarism. that is something that we have to get away from. i think the three dangerous people in the senate are lindsey graham, john mccain, and now kelly ayotte. kelly ayotte may be the most dangerous woman in the world because she is one of the last of the neocons. i'm afraid she's a little too late to the party could we are getting sick of it. i am a ron paul republican. everythingt about all along. everybody puts them down because he is, but at least he does not believe in perpetual war for perpetual peace. host: thanks for the call. this on our twitter page --

you can live in the northeast or midwest -- you know fracking is a big issue as hurling continues. it has created an economic boom and parts of pennsylvania and the upper midwest. the headline from the "weekly standard" -- as we said, the president is heading to northern ireland for the g-8 summit. from thehill.com jack joins us from minnesota, on our line for independence. caller: good morning. i hope you can give me about half an hour. i've got a lot of things to say. i am furious. i am a vietnam veteran. andudied the vietnam war the propaganda that got us into it. i studied all of our actions for the last 50-60 years.

i studied iraq and all the propaganda that got us into it. i've got to say, if the american public puts up with this, it is just going to make me crazy. host: put up with what? do you support or oppose what the president is doing? caller: put up with the propaganda garbage that we are fed. you cannot believe anything coming out of our destitute media. you cannot believe anything coming out of our government. anthe way, curtis, that was excellent call -- i wish i could be as rational and calm as curtis -- do not let me forget to tell you about abu sakar, by the way. this propaganda, you would think they are getting paid a lot of money, you would think they would come up with something new.

haven't you heard this before, the evil vietnamese, communists, the terrible hussein with all of those weapons of mass destruction? yes, this is sliding into president obama's third war. to doopaganda, we've got this and we do not want to be terrible to bomb them, but we will -- we are giving money and sakars to people like abu who you can see on youtube. he is a rebel "commander." he is a religious fanatic, terrorist who is on youtube so-ing open a syrian army called enemy with his knife, tearing the guys heart out and eating it. he is a cannibal. gee, what could go wrong with

this scenario? we are giving money and weapons to a cannibalistic religious fanatic terrorist. host: i will leave it there. thank you for your call and your contribution. this on our twitter page -- we said at the top of the program, a busy week on capitol hill. the senate continues its work on the immigration bill. the house of representatives is taking up the issue of abortion. a lyrical writes morning that congressman trent franks -- politico writes this morning that congressman trent franks, his bill now includes an exception for rape and. that follows his remark after rape -- on rates and pregnancy created an uproar last week. rape and pregnancy created an uproar last week.

he is being replaced by a high- profile house republican woman, are sure blackburn. she will be managing the debate and that the bill is being changed to include a new exception for abortion. congressman frank's creating the store on wednesday -- the stir .n wednesday that story is available online, the reporting of catherine smith, at politico.com. the question we are asking for the first 45 minutes is, is syria president obama's third war? democrats line from missouri. warer: here we go, another for israel. how long will we continue to do this? whinedyears, israel has about iran having a nuclear weapon in six months. while they continue to stockpile the clear weapons. our media who of

is owned by israel. i do not know what people are talking about. how many people in the middle east are you going to slaughter for that terrorist nation, israel? host: why would you call israel a terrorist nation? caller: because they have attacked people since they have been there since 1947. they have done nothing but steal land from the palestinians. they have broken every u.n. commitment they made. do your homework. host: is that attacking or defending the israeli border? caller: it has always been israel. you know it. israel, a warfor that we are going to lose like we lost iraq, like we are going to lose iran, if we get involved and their. to get what has happened in iraq -- look at what has happened in iraq. what happened to democracy? host: carmen is next from montana. caller: good morning.

this is a very sad and somber day for us. here we are in the background of the drumbeat of the third owar. noare going to do this, make mistake about this. the puppet masters want us to do this, not the president. they want to murder the people that own the land who have the resources underneath it. that is what has happened in every war we have been in. we have never went to win the war. we have gone to take the resources. the freemen -- the men that just talked to her right on. we not going there for perpetual peace. we are going there for perpetual war. the puppet masters who run our government around in all the resources in the world. there are people suffering. i have agent orange. i passed it on to my kids. there are so many things going on that people do not realize. they lied to us in the vietnam

war. they lied us into the iraq war. now they are lying us into the syrian war. i saw the guy that they are given the weapons to. he took the guys heart out and ate it. everybody who has been calling and is exactly right -- no matter what we say on c-span, there is nothing we can do about this because the people that control our government, not us, unless we have free elections, unless we have elections financed by the people, who will never get our government back again. or is only one to get our government back. it is to have publicly financed elections. i suffer from posttraumatic stress disorder. i suffer from agent orange, which people are spraying on your lawns every day. to dountry has nothing with running our government. we have lost our government. the day they killed john kennedy. final thought? caller: thank you for letting

me on c-span good i'm so upset. i could go on for hours and hours about the my new ship -- the minutia. host: we will leave it there. focusing on the other big story, g8 summit which is developing here in washington "time" magazine -- , we will digrning into the details of the patriot -ct and take you back to 2001 2000 two, why congress and the president put in place the origins of the patriot act. it was renewed in 2011. the fisa court, which was established during the carter administration in 1978, how it works today. some things you may not know about the system. that is coming up later this morning as we drill down into the details of the national that is and leak story dominating discussion right now

here in washington. after your calls on the issue of syria -- is this the president's third war? tony from new hampshire. caller: the last couple of guys that have called and, i agree with them 100%. ?hy is this obamas war it is america's war. holy battles, holy wars. let people live their lives. use the u.n., international troops. why is it obamas war? why is it all about obama? it is about us and people in general. we do not need this. host: we have to stop you there. we appreciate the call. we ask that you avoid any

profamily which. the question we are asking, is this the president's third war? one more portion from the piece on nationaljournal.com. gallupng to a recent poll, 60% of americans say the u.s. u.s. should not use military force in syria even if diplomatic efforts to end of the civil war fail. may be suffering as much from american neglect as it suffered a decade ago from too much intervention. the story this morning from "national journal." tony joining us from missouri, good morning. caller: good morning. wereast couple of callers saying this is not america's war and we cannot take care of it, but these people are having a tough all over there.

when you have a government that is using weapons against its own people and you have a civil war going on where there has been 100,000 people killed, i do not see how you can turn your back on something like that. i do not think you can i'll lay it on barack obama. of our of lost control government, congress and everything. our representatives. when we have the power to step in and do something to save lives, i cannot see how we can sit back and watch so many people die. it is going on all around the world, not just in syria. there are other places we do not hear about as much. thatmment basically is you cannot stand by and watch that many people get killed by their own government and go along with it. beingmments about israel a terrorist nation, that is ridiculous. israel, all i have to do is sit there and be a peaceful nation for all of those years, and they keep getting hit and hit. host: that was my point earlier.

is this a question of israel tried to protect its borders, a country that was clearly the jimmy lee set up following world legitimately set up following world war ii? caller: things keep building up on them. these wars keep popping up. the bottom line is these are wars that somebody has to fight. somebody has to stop the killing. i call it genocide. when you watch that many people die, it is a sad thing. i do not think you can lay everything on obama. he has a really tough job right now. i'm not really an obama supporter, but he has a really tough job. i feel for him, to be in his spot. host: william, thank you for the call. based on many of the calls, if you have been with -- if you have been listening, lots of passionate colors this morning -- "newsmakers"span's

program focusing on the deadline approaching to the student loan rates. john kline is the chair of the house education and workforce committee. in the republican response to the president's weekly address, former education secretary and tennessee republican said her lamar alexander so addressing the same issue. -- also addressing the same issue. [video clip] >> senate republicans will work hard with the president and with the house to produce an agreement that ensures all student borrowers benefit from today's low interest rates. that would mean that 100% of all new student loans made this year would have a rate below 5%. we may be in agreement on student loans, but we have a major disagreement about who should be in charge of our one hundred thousand public schools that educate 50 million american children. to put it simply, democrats want a national school board.

republicans favor local control. , the unitedt decade states department of education has become so congested with federal mandates that it has actually become, in effect, a national school board. if you remember the childhood game, other may i, then you have a good sense of how the process works. states must come to washington for approval of their plans to educate their students. this congestion of mandates is caused by three things -- no child left behind, race to the top, and the administration's use of waivers. together, they have imposed federal standards for what children must know in reading and math. they have forced some states into adopting common core standards. they have imposed federal definitions of how a state should measure school, teacher, and principal performance. host: lamar alexander, the

republican senator from tennessee. focusedident's address on father's day. we will show you a part of that coming up later. we are focusing on whether or not you think syria is the president's third war. this on our twitter page -- "the new york times" reporting on the other developing story -- a protesters fled teargas and water cannons the police pursued them, in one case into a luxury hotel.

within hours of thousands of people began streaming downtown to protest the crackdown. bustling streets on saturday night -- at least 44 people have been injured in the mayhem." in that story, available online at nytimes.com. bray is joining us on the issue of syria. good morning. i see gore vidal is .iving on with perpetual war i thought congress declared war so i think the question is -- we have not had a war declared in this country by a legitimate constitutional means since i can

remember. we are living in a state where the governor does not want to listen to our telephone calls. your previous callers had it right, the government is out of control. have great ron paul ideas and we dismiss them as crazy. we lost our government. guy, i ame the one sure glad we had that first caller: who could keep his ideas in check and be reasonable. this other guy starting to drive me crazy. c-span2er program on talking about atrocities in vietnam and japan during world war two. we are going to set our people up to destroy their bodies and minds for what? for oil. with all of the money we have wasted on these foreign

in a heckwe would be of a lot better shape if we use the sun or the wind. are probably not aware of perpetual war or perpetual peace. that is the failure of our propaganda. we just want to march the people down the same path. host: thank you. kent has this point on our twit on the fox news website there is this story about trust in government.

pollsters believe their government will do the right thing some of the time. it is bound to be damaging. the obama scandal's brisk national security, from fox news. there's a photograph of the former president and former secretary of state hillary .linton at the cgi only is the president leading in from behind -- a look at presidential politics and syria from "the new york

times" democrat, good morning. caller: i was stunned by president obama's decision. i have been 100 percent behind him and he has been restricted emersons he got into office. of the birthdal certificate to the time when the pentagon funding argument has still prevailed over domestic , the issue with israel, i have nothing against any country. -- israel has 70 nuclear-weapons, which stunned iran. they have not signed the u.n.

charter. it seems like since we are set bending -- since we are spending a tough times more than anyone in the world on defense it is more like offense. where it may be a jobs kind of issue now for thisnies that are doing for the pentagon funding. to have our procedure of stepping into syria is not a good guy in light for the world to the u.s. as a place of peace. -- to view us as a place of peace. host: thank you.

a series of bilateral meetings will be taking place tonight. the president will have meetings with his counterparts in europe and of course vladimir putin. on our twitter page -- a key player in d.c. politics and in a number of significant cases, the washington post writing about his obituary. he was 76-years old. he was an outspoken federal judge. he declared microsoft monopoly that needed to be broken apart. his home.s feet in he was 76-years old. judge jackson, a native washingtonian, ruled on a number

of cases and became known for his blunt assessment -- for his blunt assessment of lawyers and jurors who came before him. next to stand for joining us from empire, alabama, a republican line. good morning. we need to really be serious about syria because look at what happened in egypt. in public tvaught joking about a river in africa but it came out that this said their main and release -- their main enemies is america and israel. if they ever to go to war we need to stand behind them. they killed your mind in revelations. the headlines today were written thousands of years ago. we need to get back to the

basics in america. host: george monroe has this -- a photograph from albany, new ofk -- after leaving office new york his son the commissioning an official portrait. it took place just in time for father's day. the unveiling of the portrait of mario cuomo, who was a in the earlyvernor 1990's. he is not the governor of the empire state. off -- and now the governor of the empire state. to wish everybody a happy father's day. if you have a father you are lucky to be here.

just to respond to that last caller. she said we need to get back to god. she is right. people need to remember that god is love. she said we need to support israel and she mentioned something about the book ezekiel. always supported israel. 33, gotta, ezekiel many times in the past, has not been happy with israel. i do not believe he is happy with israel right now. how does this tie into syria? caller: i was just responding to her comment. i think the only hope the world has any more, which includes syria, iraq, afghanistan, the

entire world situation, there is an answer and it is a very simple answer. the answer is love. love is the only thing that is going to save this planet. my name is arnold joseph white. i have written a book that i f put online for free -- that i have put online for free. my website is godislove.org. this book contains evidence of proof of the existence of god. host: thank you for the call. thank you for sharing your website for those that are interested. we just have a couple of more minutes left. the question, is syria president's third ward? daniel has this point on our fa

the morning -- caller: they are right about israel. saidt said that -- dodd and to divide not the land -- god said to divide not the land. do we want to send our sons and daughters? this is ridiculous. our government cares more about getting reelected by getting amnesty to 50 million people. this is something one of the top hispanic leaders said two months ago and a weak leader one of the hispanic ladies said there were 55 million. they used to give quotas as to

how many could come in. our troops want to know what could be happening next. they have taken away the gold standard. the top economists have said if we would go to the gold standard and cut spending would be all right. would be alle right. there is a book called collaboration. roosevelt went to visit the russian leader. they do not think -- the way they think they do not believe in god. the draft is coming and they will be doing other things that other people to not police. -- other people would not believe. the call.k you for

tom freeman writing from egypt. as a president heads to northern ireland he will face protesters. demonstrations taking place in belfast. this is father's day and the pew research center has some information about father's day. 190,000 stay at home dads. these are defined as married fathers with children younger than 15. fathers have tripled the amount

of time to have spent with their inldren from two 0.5 hours 1965 to 7.3 hours in 2011. more than three-quarters of the fathers took one week off or less from birth. forget the other clothing cliches, according to a market research pull from 2012 fathers would rather have no gift at all and spend time with their family. the president's weekly address also focused on father's day. he talked about not knowing his own father. [video clip] >> being a good parent, whether you are gay or straight, a foster parent, or a grandparent, is not easy. it demands our constant

attention, frequent sacrifice, and a healthy dose of patience. nobody is perfect. to this day i am figuring out how to be a better husband to my wife and a better father to my kids. i want to do what i can as president to encourage strong marriage and strong families. if we should reform our child- support laws to get more men to work. my administration will continue to work with the face and other community organizations, as well as businesses. our campaigns encourage a strong currency and fatherhood. if there is one thing i have learned along the way, it is that all of our personal successes schein just as personal successes of a schein less brightly if we fail at home. about be thinking michelle, sands of -- sansha's --ce recitals and malia's

that is what i think about fathers day. show them unconditional love and help them go in to the people they were meant to be then we will have succeeded. happy father's day to all of the dads out there and have a great weekend. the weekly address on this father's day weekend. he leaves today for northern ireland and later for germany. he is back in the white house on wednesday. we join in on that happy father's they wish. later in the program we are going to turn our attention to the patriot act. the balance between civil liberties and national security. paul singer is going to be joining us in a moment to take a look at the patron act and the congressional debate, as well as the politics surrounding 9/11.

then we will drill down at deeper with a look at specific provisions that deal with the issue of surveillance. these are just some of the topics on this sunday morning program, including an appearance by dick cheney. the programs are all on c-span radio. nancy is in our studios with more details. good morning. >> good morning and happy father's day. topics will include syria, national security leaks and immigration reform. we read air the programs beginning at noon eastern. -- lee re-air the programs beginning at noon eastern. colorado democratic senator mark and the former nsa and cia director. guttierez,, louis

and jeb bush. at two o'clock p.m. it is "fox news sunday." topics will include targeting of conservative groups by the irs and the attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi. at 3:00 p.m. candy crowley sits down with mike rogers. and the senate foreign relations committee chair, bob mendez. the son of network tv talk shows are brought to you as a public service -- the sunday network tv talk shows are brought as a public service. withbroadcast the show meet the press at 1:00 p.m.. the union and finally at four o'clock, face

the nation. in the d.c.h them area, nationwide on xm satellite , download the app for smart phone, or listen online at c-spanradio.org. for my small experience you do see older journalists who you know would not cut it today. that does not mean they are not good at what they do, it just means that the demands of our generation are very different. think that older people that decry what media saturation is with the constant use stream is a valid complaint. take your time to get your facts right, that is always going to be true. we saw on the healthcare ruling,

on the boston marathon bombing, and i think as the pendulum swings back and forth we are now at a time where people are reconsidering how important it is to get your facts right. >> more about journalism today with politico reporter patrick gavin on c-span's "q&a." >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome paul singer. we want to go back to the days and weeks after september 11, 2001. give our audience a sense of what was happening in the country with the patriot act about one dozen years ago. this is what president bush had to say that all in october 2001 as the patron act was being debated here in washington d.c.. [video clip] >> the bill before we take account the new realities and dangers posed by modern terrorist.

it will help law enforcement to identify, to dismantle, to disrupt, and to punish terrorists before the strike. host:: as president bush out lines the parameters of the patriot act, which was passed by congress and re-authorized two years ago, what has happened since? guest: you have to remember the patriot act was created -- it took about four weeks to pass one of the most sweeping changes in american surveillance intelligence policy in our history. think about how long it has taken us to take legislation reached it be health care bill took decades. the immigration bill will take months or years to pass. the was such a dramatic push for this.

it wasn't that people did not think there were issues or ofcerns, in the week september 11 the nation had this outrage that we needed to do something to stop these people. this was the solution. there was a whole debate as to whether we are going to four and trampling -- going to far and trampling civil rights. back at these guys who had done this horrible thing to us. host: this is a letter that was sent on december 14, 2005. senator obama was one of the signatures in this letter and what of the issues of concern worthy wiretaps. -- one of the issues of concern were the wiretaps. the whole point of the petrie act was to remove the individual and the individual

investigation from the research. i want youraying phone records, what they were saying a is they want criminals -- what they were saying is they want criminals who use phones. if you were a smart guy and started throwing away track phones? they went a little further and what aboutmind you, people that look like you? the more data you get the better you can see patterns that will lead you to plot the you did not know about individually. it is a different thing trying who youuy or one woman know has done something wrong, and you track them.

we're looking for flags in a pile of data. these words in regard to the patriot act -- among those that signed this letter, president barack obama, chuck hagel, and dick durbin, democratic leader from illinois. guest: the back -- the fact this bill sunset all was a debate in the first place. said let us have everything sunset after two years, just in case we went too far. overnight that two 0.5 years was erased and five years was put into place.

some people were outraged. the response from the government was we are going to sunset it after five years. about howo we know we're doing, and how long are we going to let this thing wrong -- let this thing run? the usa today release story revealing a lot of the information gathering that was going on. it is not on similar to the story we have seen in the past couple of weeks, the government has been collecting fast data. the debt collecting vast data. en government has ben collecting vast data. host: if you go to c-span's video library you will be able to watch the entire speech as president barack obama talks

about national security and constitutional rights. he sees someone -- you see somebody different. [video clip] >> it but for a false choice from the liberty we cherish and the security we provide. i will provide our televisions and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our constitution and freedom. that means no more illegal wiretapping, no more national security letters who spiled citizens not suspect a crime. no more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protests. the more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. it is not who we are, it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorist. the court works, the separation of powers works, our constitution works. we will again set an example for the world but the law is not

subject to the whim of the rulers and justice is not arbitrary. there are no shortcuts to protect america. senator barack obama in 2007 -- guest: he has gotten older. that job a does a guy. guyob ages a when you move from one end of pennsylvania avenue to the other your view of executive power changes dramatically. are the president of the united states, no matter what party you are a member of executive power becomes three appealing. -- becomes very appealing. you can do neat stuff with the signature of a pen. congress hates that because they

see that as their responsibility to protect their profits have come to protect theirs constituents -- to protect their prerogative, to protect their constituents. uncommon that when you see the party out of power on the white house yelling about the abuse of authority and as soon as the party in the white house which is the opinion -- othe party in the white house switches the opinion on capitol hill switches. host: later, how the patriot act was implemented and we will also focus on the fis accord established by the jimmy carter administration. our phone lines are open and you consent us eight weeks. -- you can send us a tweet.

the vote in the house for the fisa act passed for the vote in the senate was 98-1. barack obama was not in the senate in 2001. it was signed the following day by the president's. that gives you a sense of how quickly this thing moved her. on the reauthorization of the the house but was 250-153 and the senate vote was 72-23. you can see the change 11 years later and was signed by the president on may 26, 2011. guest: when you go back to 2001 when this thing was passed, there's a certain time capsule element. the nation had just come historical ain a

contentious presidential election. there were democrats and liberals disputed the fact that george bush had been elected at all. there was an extreme partisanship in the nation. you may or may not recall that republicans have also taken control of the senate in that election but early in 2001, jim jeffords switch parties giving the democrats controlled by one vote. at the time of the september 11 attack, it was historic, dramatic, and possibly unparalleled. suddenly all that changed. we all became americans first, suddenly partisanship evaporated. suddenly, we are all yankee fans, for god's sake. all the nation came together and said we are americans. that is what allowed this kind of extraordinarily rapid passage of this legislation. there were people even than saying hold it we have not actually read this bill. we're not sure what it does.

throughtry had come this moment, this emotional moment, i'm sure you remember as well -- we were watching the tower's fault wondering what had happened to us. degree, partsome of the healing response. whether or but it was good policy was less relevant than the fact that we were responding. we were doing something. we were doing something to catch the bad guys. did not votedrieu but it was a 91-one, senator russ feingold was the only one to vote against it. was he right in hindsight? but it's not my call. aren hindsight, we experiencing now the conversation we maybe should have had them in more detail. host:

guest: what the patriot acted did -- you talk about the fisa courts -- the key provisions we today in the patriot act in the section 250 basically detaches the investigation from the individual. they said that law enforcement agencies can gather up any information they today in the we amounts, anything related to a terrorism concern, not anything related to steve scully and his criminal activity. it is related to an ongoing investigation. when they brought in that universe of what was available to law enforcement, they allowed essentially what you are seeing now, the concern that they are gathering everything. is there anything they cannot gather? law enforcement will tell you that we gather but we don't

look. meaning we are gathering huge amounts of data and looking for anomalies. when we see those anomalies, that is when maybe we listen to a telephone call or maybe we look into the individual. they are not reading your e- mails. they may be gathering the clicks to see whether that is suspicious. it would lead them to want to read your e-mails. singer is our guest from "usa today." calls as part of the conversation. we are drilling down deep into the patriot act and later the fisa court and we're focusing on the politics that led to the patriot act. a brief background of what is in the act courtesy of the justice department -- it increases surveillance of terrorist-related crimes. it allows for roving wiretaps.

guest: this gets back to the connection between the fbi and other intelligence agencies, the 2001 bombers the that we failed to connect the dots. that was the lego. --lingo. the sharing among the

intelligence agencies was designed to connect the dots. when you allow the connecting of dots, you basically allow for a broader swath of information to be gathered and shared and that's where you get the concerns that you are a police state where everything i do online or on the fund becomes part of some grand criminal database. the phone fromon baltimore, democrats line. caller: good morning. i want to say to your desk that you sound like you're on the fence whether you are for or .gainst the patriot act o taking both sides. guest: that's right. caller: was no debate about the picture? . they put it in in the middle of the night and never became in the next morning and did not read it. they just passed it. precursort act is a to the ndaa is designed to turn

this nation into a police state. was the purpose of 9/11. -- that was the exact purpose of 9/11, to turn this country into a police state. wasbombing of oklahoma city also a government-stage incident. contrived.l been the people of this nation need .o understand that guest host: when you say was a government-staged incident, what is your evidence? guest: there is tons of evidence caller: the mainstream media is owned by corporate government. host: give me your evidence, what is your proof? twinr: just like the towers, the controlled demolition experts say this was a controlled demolition. host: give me the evidence.

what is your proof? caller: oklahoma city was blown up from the inside. the caller is correct that i do not have an opinion whether the patriot act is good or bad. it's not my job to have opinions. i have spent an awful lot of time rooting around in politics and government. i have extraordinary doubts about your conclusions about both 9/11 and oklahoma city. i have pretty good reasons to believe that those were not planned by the government and they were not strategies to gather more government control. again, that is based on research over the past decade and that have. i don't have opinions about its ally will not debate you. host: if you have the facts on this, present the facts but otherwise, we don't deal with these conspiracy theories.

we have been getting a lot of calls like this so just give us your evidence. balanced.geable and we want to focus on what is in the pastry act and the politics that led to its passage and your calls and comments on whether you think it is working. lowry is joining us from britain and, fla. -- caller: thank you. i am glad to be here. hello? all, i am only a republican because i changed my party to vote for ron paul. i believe the republicans and democrats are just a two-headed monster and we don't get any policy changes with a new party in office. i have an objection to your designations. secondly, i don't approached -- support the picture? . i agree with the first caller that there was no debate. it was passed in the middle of the night and it was a huge bill

that nobody read and i think that is very dangerous for our with -- that is very dangerous for our representatives. reading before you vote i think is an important thing in congress. finally, i have a question about where all this data is getting collected. my understanding is there is about 72 perfusion centers across the united states. -- 72 fusion centers across the united states to collect this information on americans and others and then they trend it. i don't think they have human beings really a correction but i feel certain the information is being read by computer algorithms. then and a trend that people and put them in categories. feinstein actually made

a comment that we can find future terrorists by trending. i would say anybody can become a future terrorist. if you put enough pressure on them. i know virtually nothing about how this stuff operates. as a political reporter, political reporter, i scrape as much data as i can. i've read through expenditure records by congress produces on itself every quarter. i'm looking for anomalies. with days like this, the only reason to gather this data is to throw it all into a machine that will spit out things that are unusual. tothere were 15 phone calls oman in an afternoon, you wonder

what is going on there. the ron paul comment, one thing that is intriguing about the recent disclosures about the nsa surveillance is that it has really brought the libertarian republican strand of the party and the the sort of libertarian-celebrities strand of the democratic party together in very strong opposition. it is an odd uniting and there was a bill last week that john ofyers of michigan, a lion the civil rights movement and a ,unior republican from michigan they have joined together on a bill that would limit to this some requiring of specific identification.

are seeing is in fact some bipartisan appearance now out of these disclosures and some bipartisan unity that perhaps we have gone too far host: this is from "the washington post"this morning with a picture of the president at the nsa offices. vice-president shanee is making an appearance on the sunday morning programs. --cheney. they are saying trust us. guest: there was a joke going

wrong -- around the dick cheney once said if you are calling your end penny paris, we probably don't care. he reacted to the disclosures about the programs. the point was that if you are calling your aunt penny paris we probably don't care but we probably know and we might care and if we care, we might go look. it is very telling that he never said if you call your aunt penny paris, we would not know about that. they probably would know about that. host: this follow-up from twitter -- guest: we are hard-pressed to

know the answer to that question. who is muslimive and lives overseas. when i call my relative, it is my brother, overseas are my calls being tracked? way, maybe but there is no for me to know whether my phone calls are being tracked. the aclu has made this case repeatedly and argued in court that we are being affected by this and their rights are being cannoted but the courts help you because you don't know if your phone calls are being tracked. host: this is the story from the front page of "the washington post." this gives you a sense of the

outsourcing of government projects with private companies dealing with national security. guest: the government outsources almost everything it does. host: this is just another reminder of how extensive it is. guest: absolutely, the government -- the nsa has spent hundreds of millions of dollars building and rebuilding computer centers for itself but i doubt it has the staff to run them. i doubted as the individuals and expertise to manage the technology. that is something they have to hire for and they hire contractors. host: katy is joining us from philadelphia, independent line and our focus is the patriot act. caller: thank you for taking my call. how many pages is the patriot act? guest: honestly don't know. i never looked at it on paper. i caller: find it highly suspicious that our government takes forever to do anything could put a bill together within

six weeks. must have been written way prior to passing. guest: it is true that significant portions of the patriot act were drawn from years of discussions with law enforcement and intelligence communities. they said we would like to have the authority to do this or that. after september 11, john ashcroft, the attorney general at that time, gathered a bunch of those wish lists together, stapled them together and took them to capitol hill and said this is what we would like to do. you are right, none of this stuff just appeared on tuesday morning. it was stuff that intelligence agencies have been talking about for years. host: the president's choice as the next fbi director played a key part in the debate, a hospital room scene in which

john ashcroft had been suffering from gallbladder surgery and basically turned it over to the acting district attorney -- the acting justice. -- the acting attorney general. guest: according to the story ney threatenedol to resign if some of these surveillance or not repealed. he felt the way the government was going at it originally was illegal. host: there is this from senator bernie sanders -- guest: i can make the counter argument as well, just for fun,

that if you have teenagers in your life, it may not be a bad thing if they know or think that people are watching them all the time so they won't tweet gusting pictures of themselves and say obnoxious things on social media. there may be some sense of responsibility they get out of this kind of thing that the internet and social media are not simply a free and open place for you to spout off. man is my cantankerous old version. that is not necessarily good policy. host: carroll is joining us this morning on the democrats . caller: i want to ask mr. singer, the journalists there, what fisa stands for? what is the abbreviation? also, does health care come into play under the fisa rule or the

patriot act? guest: let me answer the first part. foreign intelligence surveillance act. it is a 1970 act that created a special court that would approve warrants secretly when the government look -- goes to look for things and the pitcher act expanded the authority of that fisa court. what is the health-care part of the question? stand: what does fisa for? host: we will focus on the fisa court and how it works. the judges serve seven-year term and the less they're granted special permission by the chief justice, they leave that court and move on to other responsibilities. robert is from manchester, maryland, good morning. you seem to be well

versed in the patriot act but i have noticed you have not gone into great detail what constitutional law is being broken. guest:right, because i do not yet have evidence that constitutional law is being broken. that is up to the courts to determine. there have been some arguments in court about what parts of this are constitutional and what are not. i have to admit that i am just not that well educated on the court's history of either the patriot act or fisa. host: we are spending well over two hours this morning on the topics and we will focus more on the implementation of the patriot act right now, we're focusing on the politics that led to the pit trade act. let me go back to the comment by speaker of the house john boehner in 2011 when it wasre- authorized.

guest: that's the whole theory, that is why they do this. by the way, this is also why it is going to be difficult to unravel this act. the push back will be that this information helps us stop terrorist attacks. this information is necessary in the modern world to catch people plotting against us. where there were not that is true is less relevant that people believe it is true. conceivable and therefore, people will say that makes some sense. it is going to be very hard to

simply stripped away and start again. president bush had this to say about changing technologies and how it affects the government's job and tracking disinformation job "washington journ. [video clip] >> existing law was written in the era of rotary telephones. this will allow surveillance of all communications used by terrorists. that includes e-mails, the internet, and a cell phone spres. we will be able to better meet the technological challenges posed by this poor thracian of communications technology. investigations are often slowed by a limit on the reach of federal search warrants. and for some agencies have to get a new warrant for each new

district they investigate. even when they are after the same suspect. law, warrants are valid across all districts and across all states. finally, the new legislation greatly enhances the penalties that will fall on terrorists or anyone who helps them. presidentou hear from bush in october, 2001 about six weeks after the events of september 11, should any of this be a surprise, the fact that the government now keep track of all these phone conversations to connect the dots? was theo, i think this whole idea, to some degree. host: he did not say it there. guest: i think that is what has happened and there are several senators who have tried over the say thatral years to

you guys have no much information they are actually gathering about you. it is true. there were not allowed to tell us either. it was all classified. what is shocking to americans are reading these stories now is to suddenly realized just how much information is being gathered and just how much of it might be your information. you had not even considered that your information would be gathered. host: guest: that's a good point. week that iast welcome this conversation about the extent of surveillance that is fine, he welcomes the conversation but the conversations have been classified for the last 10 years so we were not allowed to have that conversation and there is still stopped the nsa is

declassifying in bits and pieces to allow us to talk about it and to allow us to learn more about them and get more information of what they are doing. you have to ask the question -- how much secrecy should law enforcement have and does removal of secrecy make law- enforcement less effective? that is one of the critical questions here. if the bad guys know where the cops will be, does that mean they will simply move their a cubsto somewhere else won't be or do we have the right to know there is a cop in that corner? it is a delicate balance. host: hamilton, alabama, good morning. republican line. caller: i would like to say that the patriot act is a fraud.

is the same as 9/11 and oklahoma city. you ask the previous caller what proof he had about oklahoma city. what about the multiple bombs they said they pulled out? what about timothy mcveigh, he listed his occupation in the army. on his death certificate. guest: one of the things about the leaks of this nsa program that have been interesting to me is that it reaffirms my belief that the government is pretty much incapable of keeping big secrets for long periods of time. and, to a large degree, the government is incompetent. i mean it in the nicest possible way. the government does not do things very well or efficiently.

takes time and money and sooner or later, somebody tells somebody and it leaks out. if what you are saying is true about timothy mcveigh and these theories, conspiracy sooner or later, those facts will come out if they are true. i have never seen facts to suggest they are true but i have faith of in our government's inability to keep secret. host: this is from one of our viewers -- guest: there has been some discussion about this. this is an area where i am not an expert but there has been some attempt in the administration over the past few years to reconsider classification guidelines and to reduce the amount of stuff that

is being classified i came across this when we talk about the freedom of information act. there have been times when the government has simply decided to make up new categories of classification like "keep it secure" or close hold" but they use it to prevent us from getting it. there has been ever to reduce the amount of information or create a clearer standards that is classified and protected by the legal framework and not allow people to hide it. re-t: when is the next authorization of the major act? guest: 2015. caller: good morning, good to hear the discussion today. i really don't like this at all. is for a couple of reasons. we can go back to when it was

passed and the comments made by many people. was widely publicized. on germinate who said give them another sphere and in common: they will give up everything. -- in germany who said give them another -- give them enough fear and a goal and they will give up everything. we see this wholesale collection of data. is supposed toh be used just for census information and never to be used for anything else, we have seen that used to round up the japanese. we have seen it used in other ways. is the government going against its word saying that the data is for this but it we might use it for something else. guest: right, what the president

says about these things and what congress is saying and particularly with james clapper, the national director of intelligence is saying it, is that that is why we have three branches of government, checks and balances. that's why congress has to pass the law and remained regularly briefed. that is why the white house, the law enforcement agencies, have to ask permission of the court's. the courts have the authority to then say whether or not you are falling below and whether or not you are protecting the rights of americans. this is a very tricky balance. the caller is right, the government has used the information incorrectly in the past we are in the middle of an investigation about irs officials ms. using information about tea party organizations.

i'm not trying to make a case that the government is not capable of completely miss using information and doing the wrong thing. i do for a living, i track the government doing the wrong thing. the argument is what you get from the white house and the intelligence committee now is are, trust us because we operating within this framework of congressional oversight and court oversight. you could be sure your rights are protected. host: we showed this earlier but in case you missed it, back in 2001, when congress and later the president sign the pitcher in fact, it passed overwhelmingly in the house of representatives on october 24, 2001, one day later by a vote of 98-1, senator feingold voted nay and it passed and one day later, president george w. bush signed the patriot act into law.

even the name patriot act -- guest: it is providing appropriate investigating tools --? it is an acronym. it is called the u.s. a pastry bag. it is united and standing firm. i have a note somewhere on that. the whole name of the act was an acronym p. host: paul singer, thank you for being with us. we are setting up the discussion on the pastry act. guest: happy father's day. host: coming up in a couple of minutes, a former just a part in official and now a professor of george mason university will be fisang us and later, the act, we will talk about the details when it was put in place during the carter administration and change and refined in 2001. that is coming up in a moment.

meanwhile, this weekend on c- isn 2 and cspan 3, our focus on raleigh, north carolina. we will travel to the charge of state, the capital of north carolina, and visit with michelle laniere talk about julia cooper, a former slave who became a prominent african- american scholar. you can watch this entire event on cspan 3's american history program at 5:00 eastern time. shehen she realized that hid a feeling being amounts of the majority of the student population here at santa guston's, she advocated -- at st. augustine's, she had exercised more rigor breaches said she can "do the work the boys are doing very icahn said the greek, latin, i can study higher level studies.

she successfully advocated for herself for there was some resistance at first. there was the notion that we educate the girls to become homemakers, to become maybe nurses, maybe teachers. she will not need this higher level of education is what the theory was. she resisted that. pushed against those thoughts and continued to grow intellectually. the local content vehicle travels to ignore it -- rally, -- travels to raleigh, north carolina this weekend you can check out at 5:00, the program from raleigh, north carolina and all of our programming is available on our website at .span.org/local content

let's continue our conversation on the patriot act and later, fisa law. nathan sales is with us, good morning. about how the patriot act was implemented but take this back to 2001-2002 when you were in the justice department. we talked about how quickly this lobbying bill, six weeks after the events of september 11. from your standpoint, what was happening inside the justice department? guest: it was a massive effort from ever having this happen again. there is a sense early on after 9/11 that we needed to equip intelligence and law-enforcement officials with new tools they could use to detect terrorist plots before they happen and interdict them before they could materialize. the pastry and tries to do that in a number of ways. it has a couple of key goals,

one of which is updating block based on technology. these are laws that have been written in 1960's and 1970's to govern analog communications and looks terribly out of date. it tried to level the playing field. there are double tools that ordinary cops could use to investigate drug dealers and mob bosses. there were not yet available for intel is officials trying to investigate potential terrorist threats. the patriot act equipped our intelligence officials with the same sorts of tools that law enforcement had been using for decades. the third thing you try to do was to improve coordination and information sharing and make sure the right and new with the left hand was doing so that intelligence officials and law and forced officials could launch a concerted effort. host: let's go back to the debate following the bombings in boston where the administration was criticized for not connecting the dots or keep track of what the brothers were doing.

guest: how can the government be checking phone calls? the answer has a lot to do with the oversight mechanisms to prevent the kind of abuses we worry about like privacy and civil liberties. under the programs that have been disclosed in recent days, there is an awful lot we don't know. the previous guest talked about over classification and declassification. we are still waiting to find out the exact content and details of these programs. it looks like what is happening is the government is asking special fisa court for permission to collect large amounts of data about phone communications. it does not look like they are vacuuming up the content of the calls. it appears they are getting a phone number that has been dialed, other types of transactional information. there is a distinction.

did -- did this story surprise you or did you know when you're at the just a part in this is taking place? guest: i haven't been there for over a decade so i was out of the loop on current counterintelligence and counter- terrorism surveillance programs for host: and the story came out "why were you surprised? guest: i was surprised to learn the details but i was not surprised that the government would be collecting information and using it to prevent future terrorist attacks. in this year, we have a sense that the government would be derelict in its duty if it was not doing its utmost to protect us against terrorism. host: let me go for some of the details of the patriot act ,ourtesy of govtrackus section 215 basically gives easier access to business records, section 203 allows

information to be shared with intelligence agencies and section 206 the fisa wiretaps' center under the provision and under section 2 of the 13, allows for the leak and peek search warrants. [video clip] section 250, business records provision, was created in 2001 in the patriot act for tangible things -- hotel records, credit card statements,etc, - things that are not fall more e- mail communications. the fbi uses that authority as part of its terrorism investigations. section 2154uses phone call records, not for google it is or other things. under section 215, an essay

collects phone records pursuant to a court record. it can all look at that data after showing there is a reasonable, articulate, suspicion that a specific individual is involved in terrorism actually related to al qaeda or i ran. at that point, the database can be searched but that search only those fiveta data of numbers, things that are in the phone bill. that person -- the vast majority of records in the database are never accessed and are deleted after a period of five years. to look at or use content of a call, a court warrant must be obtained. is that a fair description or

can you correct it in any way? that is accurate. host: that was general keith alexander. up on what she said this morning from "the washington post." guest: there is no question meta data can be incredibly revealing when you look at it. who is looking at it and under what circumstances? as senator feinstein indicated, there appears to be something

like a two-step process. the first step is the nsa acquires the information by using an order under section 215. that data that goes into some vast government warehouse, a digital equivalent of the warehouse in indiana jones. the second step of the process becomes under what circumstances can the government look at the data collected? the answer is upon a showing of reasonable suspicion to believe the data in the warehouse might be relevant to an ongoing investigation to protect against terrorism you are quite right potentialdata has the to reveal intimate information about our lives and relationships and daily business. it is important to understand the circumstances that the government is looking at it and appears to be in situations only where there is a demonstrated linked to terrorism investigation. sales/ur guest is nathan

he is now a professor of law at george mason university in virginia. our phone lines are open and you can join the conversation on twitter or facebook. david is joining us from plymouth, n.c., republican line. caller: good morning. it always puzzles may help people think we live in a free society. government means there are controls that will be put in place. i have worked in side of government. will livee covenants under and i am surprised when you have people think that when i got my first fan, it was a party line. people listened in on your conversation. things have never changed. we have always been governed, that mr. have to be some controls in place for it whether it be a church, we accept that there are limits imposed upon us in church for their limits imposed upon us with government.

-- we tryeople that to live in grey but we rule in black and white. guest: that is an excellent point. you need to keep the distinction between information about the transactional information, the oftaadata and the contents the call. the party line example is good because it shows how your expectations of privacy and the conversation you're having are pretty incensed. what you say to your wife or your husband, the privacy of a telephone call or e-mail -- it is sacred and we want very strict controls on the circumstances in which the government can access that information. legally speaking, the amount of privacy we enjoy with meta data, historically that information has received much weaker protections under statutes and the constitution.

when you dial a phone number, you are voluntarily conveying that information to a third party, namely verizon or at&t. in the olden days, you did directly. you told the operator you like to call in number and now there are computers that serve as intermediaries. the basic principle is the same breed when you voluntarily disclose information to verizon about the number you want to dial, you sort of surrender a measure of your expectation of privacy. that's what the courts have held. host: this is from our facebook page -- guest: it is a good idea and i would stop the sentence there.

it is important to have strict oversight mechanisms. the most important one we have under the patriot act and under fisa, is the underlying statute, is the requirement of judicial review. the government cannot support of your phone records unless a court says so. the government cannot listen to your phone conversations or read your e-mails unless the fisa court says separate is not so much trust the government to do the right thing, i think it is trust the courts to serve as a check on the government in the same way they serve and a variety of other contexts. host: that's one thing we don't really know yet. i would like to know and awful lot more about what sorts of internal controls the government has on using this information. we have to infer what the penalties are from other contexts. a good example of what can be false someone misuses data comes

to us from a fairly recent history. in 2008, there is a scandal about state suburban contractors who had access to passport files of the three major presidential candidates. they were snooping around in the records and it was discovered fairly quickly and the reason for that is it is possible to -- to put audit controls on data bases. controls flags the contractors. i think they were fired. that gives some hope that there are mechanisms in place to detect unauthorized uses of information and hold those who do so accountable host: this morning from " the new york times" --

guest: there are a couple of different statutes that mr. snowden could be charged under. there is the espionage act which dates from world war one. we talked about updating belote. the espionage act is in bad need of being updated. it was written in an area of telegraph, forget rotary telephones. that is one possible set of laws that mr. snowden has potentially broken, laws making it unlawful for government employees to reveal classified information to people were not authorized to receive a like members of the press. another specific law he might have broken concerns communications intelligence. shortly after world war two, congress enacted legislation that was specifically directed to the problem of leaks of

communications information. it is possible that mr. snowden violet to that wall -- that law as well. we hear more about booz allen hamilton. what you know about this firm? >> it is a well respected firm that does government consulting across a wide variety of disciplines. i have a division that deals with national security matters and anti terrorism matters and it seems that mr. snowden was affiliated with that branch. democratsndo, fla., line, good morning. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call and thank you for being there to discuss this. my concern first started with the pitcher act. ever since then, there is more and more lost chipping away at our liberties. and we're told that the terrorists don't like our

liberties and freedoms and way of life. it seems like the government's only way of combating that is to take away our liberties and freedoms and way of life. it gets confusing when you think of it that way. they cannot even come up with agreement on how to defend our own southern border. where people are coming in illegally yet they are taking all our information and looking at it. i just have a hard time understanding that. thank her for letting me talk. host:? for that comment on that as a segue into this editorial from "the baltimore sun" focusing on the aclu. guest: the most valuable aspects of the aclu lawsuit is it

emphasizes the need for more information. there are good reasons to classified intelligence operations but there is also an important need for the public to be well-informed about the national security activities being done in our name, after all. this is a democracy, policy set by the people elected representatives with input from the people so it is important for the government to declassify as much information as possible. i would like to know more about exactly how the government is using the information that it acquires. under the 215 provisions. what plots of been disrupted as a result? we need to know these things in order to make an informed judgment as to whether the surveillance the tories should remain in place or maybe whether they should be strengthened for we cannot have that conversation on last we're given the information we need to form our opinions. host:ed is joining us from albany, n.y., and lynn -- independent line.

caller: good morning, i think the patriot act is unconstitutional. it was set up right after 9/11 and you ask for proof -- petworth where are the black boxes? down aboutnever gone a black box? host: that goes back to earlier point. we will go to chuck from alabama. i have good morning, followed this patriot act quite a bit and i think, at the time it was put it, after 9/11, it was put in to deal with terrorists and i don't really see a lot of wrong with the act the way it was written. unfortunately, the problem is that we have a justice department going back to the clinton administration when they went to waco and killed people,

the government did it, ruby ridge, the government got involved in that, oklahoma city bombing, we got fast and furious and all these things. i think the correction is in our justice department because this man recalled eric holder was involved at all of these things and yet he is the same man who chote the pardon for mark ri clinton. guest: i think this requires judicial review. any executive branch agency across the board has the potential to break a law. any human being has the potential to do something the shouldn't do. that's what it is critically important to have judicial oversight and congressional oversight, making sure the laws in place are being enforced effectively. i think we could take comfort from the fact that in the context of the patriot act and fisa, that's the system we have

agreed in 1978, congress made a conscious choice. you cannot snoop around in e- mails today or letters back then unilaterally. you have to go to the fisa court and say mother, may i? that helps us set aside work while some of our concerns. about executive branch overreach. host: a moment with your former boss president bush at the nsa -- there is this comment from one of our viewers -- not directly but the supreme court has ruled in previous cases for the foundation of some of the provisions of the pitcher act. you mentioned sneak and peak search warrants. in the trade, it is delayed notice search warrants. in 1979, there is a case where the supreme court expressly held

that when you are executing a search warrant, you don't always have to provide immediate notification to the target of the search. if you are searching a town eight sopranos house, you don't want to know you are searching his house immediately. you can delay provision of notice that the search warrant has been executed. in a 1979 case, the supreme court said the notion that immediate knows is always required, it is frivolous, that is an example of how the picture that is informed by underlying supreme court precedents. the supreme court has not tested that many provisions since but the supreme court's prior caseload forms a jurisprudential what is done in the statute. ♪ host: the whereabouts of edward snowden remaining question whether he is in hong kong but the democratic leader in the house, nancy pelosi, had this to say last week. [video clip] leaking thehat

patriot x 215 and fisa 702 and the president's classified cyber operations directed on the strength of leaking that, yes, that would be prosecutable offense. i think he should be prosecuted. host: based on that, as a lawyer and former just a part in employee, what is the process involves? guest: the first part is collecting evidence. it is a port for prosecutors to know exactly what mr. snowden allegedly did, what data did he have access to, how did he steal it, to bomb did he give it and under what circumstances all these highly insensible specific factual questions need to be resolved before you can think about a prosecution for it wants to have a clearer sense of the underlying facts, you think about how those facts map on to the governing statues. thee is the espionage act,

communications act, etc. we heard from the head of the house intelligence committee who referred to at was noted as a high-school dropout and may have a -- embellish what he said about the program. guest: some of the initial reporting on the program, it is two separate programs -- some of the initial reporting turns out to have not been entirely accurate. the initial report was that nsar the prism program, the tapped directly into the servers of isps and telecommunications service. the press has begun to walk that back. it turns out that may not have been entirely accurate. the companies that are alleged to have participated, pushed back fairly vigorously on the notion the gave the government access to the crown jewels. it is quite possible some of the initial reporting we have seen is not going to hold up. host: our next caller is joining us from the united kingdom.

this program is carried live on the bbc channel, good afternoon to you. are you with us, alistair? [indiscernible] whe a briton logs onto american servers, how does that affect the act? will they reach into the data from foreign users? does that mean we cannot log on to american servers? host: i think we have the essence of the conversation. guest: we are talking about the surveillance of foreign too far and communications, somebody in london picks up the phone and

call somebody in sydney, australia. in the olden days, it was difficult to tap that communication because you had to tap an undersea truckline in the bottom of the pacific for atlantic ocean. the atlantic or pacific ocean. that of the packets constitute that are routed through servers in the united states, so it is easier for the intelligence community to, pursuant to court order, listen in on e-mail communications that originates overseas, the termination of which is overseas. the only connection to the united states is that we have a lot of the world's internet backbone here. it raises some privacy issues and operational equity issues. it is more effective it easier for our intelligence community's to get surveillance under those circumstances, but it can raise privacy concerns

for citizens in other countries. >> -- host: the patriot actors put in place very quickly in 2001. one of our viewers saying that it is curious that congress has not moved to correct the law as quickly as it moved to enact the original. guest: it was only about six weeks from the terrorist attack to the patriot act being signed into law, but that was a very six weeks -- very busy six weeks. they were doing nothing else. i cannot remember the exact number of congressional hearings -- a rational hearings, but it was certainly more than the numbers of fingers on my hand. it is the case that the act was enacted after a great deal of careful study and the liberation, interaction between representatives of the executive branch, the senate, and the

house of representatives as well. from rep sanchez, who sat for you are last week, part of the series of closed door meetings that took place in the house of representatives and the u.s. senate with general chief alexander. this is what the representative said you're on c-span. [video clip] iswhat we learned in there significantly more than what is out there today. i cannot speak to what we learned in there. and i do not know if there are leaks, if there is more information from somewhere, if someone else is going to step up, but i will tell you that it is just the tip of the iceberg.

again, all of these things are legal. what is this worse than the public knows now? worse, butnot accumulated. broader than most people realize. host: that was last wednesday on "the washington journal." tomorrow we expect to have more information as general alexander indicated that they would be releasing this up until now classified information that would corroborate or confirm the information that this has presented a potential terrorist attacks. guest: it is important to have that information. we have to do a cost-benefit analysis. we need to know what the offsetting benefits are on the

other side of the ledger. we as voters and members of the public can engage in a rational conversation about the trade-off between privacy and security on the other. host: is that not another double-edged sword? as they release more information, potential terrorists now know what is happening, forcing the government to take another path. are disclosures that are helpful end of disclosures that help the terrorists. is possible to get summaries of what they're doing in this area that does not tipoff a terrorist to the scope of our activities. it is from the 1998 world trade center trial. osama bin laden was under indictment for the first bombing

in 1993 and during the trial it was revealed the united states had been listening to his satellite phone, which you would expect them to do. the cellphone went dark shortly thereafter. it was much more difficult to get intelligence on osama bin laden. as the government weighs disclosing this detail or rationale, it is also important to withhold the most sensitive methods of intelligence gathering. host: if you are just tuning in, our guest is nathan sales as we drill down on some of the details of the patriot act. joining us from hastings, england, another viewer from the bbc parliament channel, this program comes live on sunday afternoon. guest: thank you for having me on. i have been on this connection twice before. the first time i spoke it was about drones, the second time it

hackerst the power of in cyberspace. now it is all about surveillance. i am on the outside as much as the people in the program who do not seem to be seeing the elephant in the room. once mankind got into technology, mankind has enabled himself to do with technology, those who have the power to abuse it would. peoplet that even most do not understand the training section in the financial world being done by computers, millions of transactions. if anyone got into that and put down those machines in any form, the world would be in a sort of state. supposedly they want to keep an eye on everything, that just

comes as part of entering into this world we have never entered before. people nowadays just in to interact and use their phone is a camera and translate pictures and information in seconds. there is a price. wrote a poem and if i could just read this part of it. i talked about the spider's wanting to do what mankind does, creating a web, but web of unimaginable experiences, not only creating a new way of experiencing the world, but global interaction beyond comprehension, doing it while

the busier of your prey does not even cents that the second is beyond belief. it just amazes me that people are surprised by what is going on. that is all. host: thank you for your call. good to hear from you again. guest: it is about absolute power and absolute power corrupting absolutely. there is always the potential for that new capability or power to be be used. the critical question in my mind is now we have given the government these sorts of tools, what kinds of checks and oversight mechanisms do we have in place to prevent the government from overreaching? i think the most important one in this context is judicial review. anytime the government wants to read your e-mails, it has to go

before an ordinary article 3 judge, the target of the investigation has to be approved as an agent of a foreign power. the person under surveillance is a spy or a terrorist. you cannot do this unilaterally. you have to go before a judge and say please. judges take this very seriously. they oversee the justice department and the nsa operators and they make sure that they can apply to the terms and ultimately the question is how effective the oversight mechanism is and one of the most aportant one is to interpose neutral judge between the government on the one hand and the citizens on the other. host of this story by tim start with an emphasis on the intelligence issues -- host: this story by tim start with an

emphasis on the intelligence issues -- guest: i hope that the debate helps to inform congressional deliberations. i happen to think that ideas matter. revealednformation is to congress, i hope it informs our national conversation about whether these laws should be expanded, contracted, or whether everything is working as the traffickers of these was originally intended. host: a book that many of us may have read in high school, 1984, is this 1984 in 2013? guest: if it is, george orwell will be disappointed. google, apple, and amazon know more about the effort -- average the government

does. the government does not know what i ate last night and do not care, with good reason. they do not care what nathan sales is doing for lunch this afternoon. even if they did care, there would be strict constrictions and restraints on their ability to find that out. trust the say, government not to snoop around, but we do trust that they will comply with court orders constantly being used to oversee their activities and enforced by the court. host: clinton, n.y., democratic line, welcome to the program. caller: this is basic physics, given the free fall after 9/11, why did the fbi now review explosions in your building?

guest: i will put this on the table. was anyone out said the terrorists involved in what happened at the world trade center or the pentagon? host: absolutely not. if the government were involved, we would know by now. host: there is no proof that outside forces were involved? guest: none whatsoever. host: andrew, england, good morning. caller: good afternoon yourselves. how're you doing? basically, what i would like to know, these companies out there making money through selling security products, very often whether it is mobile companies or something semantic around software, we have cloud based services, etc., they pretty much applaud international

boundaries. obviously the united states is significant in this background and i would like to know if prophecy protect the country from terrorism by leaving out 100%, sharing information with your allies, etc., i have done nothing wrong so i have nothing to hide. at the end of the day there is this kind of air of -- is this really the way in which we should actually start looking at the clearing service? like financial embassies given diplomatic attention? if my personal data is being stored overseas, because i have purchased a certain company's country'should that authorities have access to it? i do not think so, even though i am doing nothing wrong, it should be for the citizens of my country to give me all of the

data that i choose to stock. host: thank you for the call. guest: an interesting idea. i am not sure how it would work in practice. data stored on the servers of, -- instance, yet many isp's those being off- limits to the u.s., i do not know if that is a workable rule because of the types of communication in which intelligence is most interested in the united states typically do not originate or terminate in the united states. we are interested in communication between senior officials on the border -- on the borderlands. and their associates down the war -- down the road.

those off-limits to surveillance from the united states, the united kingdom, those are the sorts of things we are most interested in. host: we are talking with nathan sales, a graduate of duke, worked with the justice department in 2001 through 2003 and is currently a teacher at george mason university in fairfax, virginia. one more call, one more tweet, jack, northport, alabama. caller: i keep hearing everyone talked about the oversight that there is and how much of it there is, but i was listening to those questions from the other day. fbi came up the

twice, the atf came up one time. the irs asked over 300 improper questions to make sure that their election was run fairly. and there is supposed to be oversight and everything they look at behind closed doors on the internet? our phone calls? lose mynally, i hate to civil rights and watch my whenitution be shredded eight out of 10 of the muslims being investigated are in this country illegally. host: ironically, this last twitter is about this as well. jack'so his point into point? guest will let me take the irs

point first. first of all, i do not have or brief for what the irs is supposed to have done with tax- exempt status for combat -- conservative organizations. on the one hand the nsa and fisa context is that the oversight is judicial. there is no judge overseeing the irs on a day-to-day basis saying -- yes you can ask this question, no, not that one. there is a compare bolt mechanism in the fisa context. now the question is -- how affective of a check are they on the branch? the justice department and that court provided regular, routine, comprehensive briefings the congress, usually classified, about the kinds of activities being offered. someone in congress knows the scope of those courts and their

oversight. and whether the justice department is secretly engaging in wiretapping activities without authorization. if that sort of activity were taking place, my sense is that someone in congress would be blowing the whistle, if not publicly that privately. host: we have had a number of calls on this and i have asked callers about evidence of their theories behind september 11, this is from richard, who focuses more on trust and government. host: on the larger issue we have seen what happened with the irs, the nsa. your thoughts as someone employed by the federal government? should trust the government, but what we should trust is the overnight -- oversight mechanisms. they are naturally prone to

overreach, naturally prone to breaking the rules. that has always been the case with government action and it always will be. the jewel of the american system is the creation of checks and balances to prevent this from happening too often. in the specific context of national security surveillance ,e see that in the fisa court where we need to confirm that the target is a spy or terrorists before the attack takes place. i think that the reduction in abuses the we have seen since 1978 were struck. host: nathan sales, thank you for adding your expertise to this conversation. guest: thank you for having me. host: in a moment we will continue to look at the fisa rule and how it was put in place in 2013. it was first signed into law in

1978. laura donahue,, coming up in just a moment. first a look at the other sunday programs that it be heard beginning at noon eastern time, the clock for those of you and the west coast. -- west coast. nancy callow is keeping track but -- keeping track of the guests and topics. >> sent you. topics will include national security leaks and immigration reform. as you mentioned, c-span radio airs the programs again beginning and noon with nbc's "meet the press." including saxby chambliss, and general michael hayden, former cia director. here "this week"

from abc with marco rubio, louis good sierras, and jeb bush. at 2:00 p.m., "fox news sunday" with dick cheney. cnn's "state of the union" follows at 3:00 p.m. the chairman of the senate foreign relations committee, bob menendez, here "this week" will be there. at 4:00, "face the nation," from cbs, with another appearance by mike rogers. the sunday network talk shows are brought to you as a public service by the networks and c- span. again, c-span radio rebroadcasts the shows at noon. you can listen to them all at c- span radio, 90.1 fm here in the washington, d.c. area, across

the nation on satellite radio channel 119. you can download our free app for the smart phone or go online to c-span.org. [video clip] back as martha washington and abigail adams, wives have played roles in the white house and campaigns to get there. abigail adams was basically a campaign strategist for her husband. she helped to advise him on who to woo and keep in his coalition. they would talk incessantly about the politics of the day, the legislation needed to be passed, which senators and congressmen they could count on, and what they needed to do to win more support. host: as we continue to continue our program on the first john roberts takes a

look at them as political parties -- in the political process with their husbands rather than as wives and mothers. >> "washington journal" continues. host: from the patriot act to fisa, we want to welcome maura donoghue from georgetown capersity, author of "the -- the cost of counter- terrorism." think you for being with us. why was this law put into place in the carter administration? guest: it was a response to the abuses we had seen on the wholesale collection of information on american citizens. there were other intelligence operations that they were , information on american citizens.

we had various cia initiatives from various agencies and church committee hearings uncovered. cap -- the cost of counter- terrorism." the response was to try to get a handle on the intelligence operations and prevent intelligence agencies from collecting wholesale intelligence of american citizens. how this works. guest: the chief justice of the supreme court of points initially 7, now 11 judges given to the court, drawn from around the country by seven different circuits, three have been revived within washington, d.c. because of the increased use of 9/11 emergency orders. have particular functions that a service, primarily reviewing applications

for four kinds of surveillance. the first is electronic, the traditional use. the second is typical searches, when the government wants to engage in physical searches. called a traphing and trace that involves envelope information for telephone calls with orders and business records that were expanded under the act. when the government wants to engage, they apply to this court for orders to allow them to proceed. on an ast do they need needed basis? is there an informal session? guest: each judge serves approximately one week out of the 11, essentially there is one on col. session, the court

has not been on until very recently and congress subsequently made it possible for them to be on, basically one judge will consider an application for surveillance. they will decide whether or not to grant it. it does not function in the same way. host: all of that placed there by john roberts? guest: each judge serves for seven years and at the conclusion of which they may not serve again. they get one chance of sitting on the bench and after seven years they are essentially turned out and cannot serve again. ost: as you look at the " -- the court and study the implications, what questions do you have?

guest: murieta. the office is secret and until recently all of their proceedings were done in ex parte. host: which means? guest: secretly and without counsel. and will go into the court look for in invitation for surveillance. that information is not public. an appellate court that is part of the process but there have only been two opinions issued by that court in the history of the fisa, where we had the four intelligence court review. it is brought about by the chief justice in that quarter of you as well.

host: general keith alexander testified this week with patrick leahy on information gleaned from an essay under the fisa rule and the information that has been gathered and where that information goes from here. [video clip] >> these are dozens of terrorist events that the help to prevent. >> we have caught millions from the records on 215. dozens of them have proved crucial or critical, is that right? abroad,s here and disrupting for contributing to the destruction.

>> they have been critical? >> that is correct. host: let me follow up on a couple points, tomorrow we will get more information because some of these details will be declassified? when it comes to the fisa rule explain the process, how quickly can the court give a response and how wide can the ruling be? the issues with your first point, the information being released tomorrow concerning these attacks, it is not a systemic reporting of what is actually happening. that is information released for a political purpose for the outrage being expressed across the nation, it is about their lives. is a does about this

nothing about giving information over time as a scholar, you would be suspect of anything released specifically in regard to political pressure. you want to see over time how the court is operating. you want to get better insight into how it functions for accountability. one of the reasons is because this port in particular has a low rate of applications being denied. to your second point, if the nsa what's to obtain information, the order that was being referred to in the video was introduced under the patriot act are tangible goods or business records. wes was with the release have seen about verizon, the collection of phone records, including calls of a purely local nature. this is the foreign intelligence surveillance act. i would've had to of applied for

an order to the court. a judge would've read through the application for the order and granted the order in order for the business records to be collected. from what has been reported, it appears that this order has been issued continuously on three- month bases for about seven years. what is extraordinary about that is the whole purpose of the foreign intelligence surveillance act was to prevent information from being collected on u.s. citizens domestically in some sort of mass operation. that was the point of fisa in response to the church committee in 1974. continued.earings then we have the foreign intelligence surveillance act. what is extraordinary is that the legislation design to prevent the wholesale surveillance of americans actually was then used following the patriot act and the foreign intelligence surveillance amendments act, it is now being used to do precisely that, to collect

metadata under the tangible goods or business records provision. host: we are talking about the fisa rule. our guest is laura donahue of georgetown university. this point -- is that too broad a generalization? guest: i think that is too broad a generalization in the sense that in order to prepare an application for the court, the government has to go through a number of steps. of have to have officers the government, high ranking that sign off on this. i have to specify -- it is different depending on the type of surveillance -- electronic surveillance is a different kind of application then pen register, trap and trace, for which there is a much lower standard. understandably because electronic surveillance deals with the substantive conversations that are intercepted. you get the conversations

themselves, not just the envelope information. it goes through the executive branch. it is not just one person. it is the executive deciding this has to be done. congress dictates the procedures. then one judge does make the call. appealse very few because generally the government wins. there are very few instances where the foreign intelligence surveillance court has actually rejected an application before it. there are more instances where they have asked the government to go away and redo the application and come back to them. again you do not have any insight into this. we know earlier during the presiding judge -- the surveillance court has a presiding judge which acts like the chief judge of the court that it would in a district court system -- in one instance, the court expressed concern that in 75 of the applications misleading or information had been included. you do not have the details on

that or how they came to that conclusion. you do see a shift depending on who the presiding judge is in the number of applications that might be flat out denied. royce lambert, you do not see many denied. seer another judge, you more denied. now we are in the new presiding judge that has recently begun. we do not know how many this judge -- we are talking about tensr three or four out of of thousands of applications over time. host: you observe the fisa court. you have written about it. do you trust that the checks and balances that many people including yourself have talked about are in place? guest: the problem with the court is they do not see it as their duty. in one of the few opinions that has been released by the court , the presiding judge of the foreign intelligence surveillance court made it

clear that they will be more deferential to classification and to the executive branch's decision to classify materials. then it would be in the district court, which already has a high standard of deference. we're talking about a court where there is no adversarial proceedings or very few. there are more that are allowed. again it is only at the margins where the executive branch ultimately makes the determination of what the programs are that it is good to be introducing. it is subject to very little oversight. even when senators and congressional members are informed, their hands are tied. we saw senator ron wyden expressing great concern about how the foreign intelligence surveillance act was being used, but he was unable to publicly elaborate on his concerns. to say that the foreign intelligence surveillance act, because it has an article three court attached to it and it is in accordance with legislation

passed by congress, so that it adequately reflects the checks and balances, i think that falls short of understanding how the process works. is a steadyly see expansion in terms of executive power. host: president carter signed into law the fisa act which was passed by congress in 1978. under the provision of the foreign intelligence surveillance act, there are seven members of this court that are responsible for the issue of war and applications. there are 11 members of the court, and here is a list of all of them and their terms, when they expire. we will hear from beretta from new york city, democrats line. caller: good morning. i just wanted to find out whether or not we have any perfection in fisa under the patriot act to keep the police from retaliating against a citizen for some private grudge. or thehether or not fisa patriot act allows the police to

shut your computer down, to shut it down and confiscate all your information and not give you the right to use your computer at all. host: on those two points we will get a response. guest: the foreign intelligence surveillance act is an instrument for the federal government, not for local and state governments. local police forces, for instance, that is not their tool to use, and it is not their information that is gathered in this way. what happens at a federal level is the question becomes, what happens to the information once it is collected? the minimize nation procedures that are adopted by the government are reviewed by the foreign intelligence surveillance court. these procedures are not public. they are classified. we do not really know what the minimize asian procedures are -- minimization procedures are. prism appears to have been done under section 702.

the court reviews only the targeting procedures. these are classified. we have no idea exactly what those are, what happens to the information. we do know that a lot of information obtained from fisa warrants by attorney general guidelines issued by attorney general ashcroft just after 9/11, that that information can be kept and examined for further information, building up more information. this is in fact what the metadata is aimed at doing, which is you obtain the information and then you analyze it to look at patterns. we know that is happening. further in terms of what happens to that information, who sees it, how it is used, efforts to obtain that in court cases have routinely failed. even the procedures themselves are classified. host: we direct your attention to the "washington post." an extensive piece --

the one question that keeps coming up is the fourth amendment of the u.s. constitution -- is this unreasonable search and seizure? guest: i would argue that this file it's principles of the constant -- this violates principles of the constitution. it essentially bypasses the fourth amendment restrictions that have otherwise been applied, for instance, in criminal law. under criminal law, you have to have probable cause that an individual has committed or is committing or is about to commit a criminal offense in order to obtain a warrant, is issued by a disinterested magistrate or judge. protectsis that this our rights under the fourth amendment. national security has always been treated differently. in the sense that weaker standards have applied. under fisa, you do not need

probable cause that an individual is committing a crime, but that an individual is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, including the possibility of being engaged in international terrorism. you also need probable cause that an individual is going to use the facilities that are going to be placed under surveillance. it now includes data sets. instead of saying that this particular phone line can be put under surveillance, the argument is that this data set can be put under surveillance and mined to generate further information. in my view, that is a slight of hand that is an end run around the fourth amendment protections that would otherwise accompany our ability to go about our daily lives without undue interference or surveillance from government entities. host: all of that coming to various data centers, including this one in iowa.

by google, yahoo, microsoft and other silicon valley giants. this story on nsa surveillance great we are focusing on the fisa act. archie joins us from ohio with attorney laura donahue. caller: hello, steve. you just took my question right out from under me on the fourth the moment. -- fourth amendment. is that the specificity of the information under the fourth amendment specifically -- reasonable sources or reliable sources -- it does seem to be totally avoided based on what you said, based on what is in the fisa. i guess a side question that i had, and you referred to it a couple of times, was that very few applications have been

denied. i read somewhere -- this was in "the new york times" or some other publication -- dozens of applications have been approved over the 35 years of fisa, but less than 10 have been denied. host: stay on the line. let me put some figures on the table. you can come back and comment. to the, according justice department, there were 1856 requests made to the court read most requests came in 2007 with just over 2300. while 1005 requests were made in 2000, 932 were made in 2001. to come back to your point. , if you couldura confirm that and informing that less than 10 have been denied in the entire history of fisa, and thousands have been approved.

if you could answer that, and i have a follow-up. guest: yes, that is consistent with my numbers. in total, fewer than 10 have whereasroved overtime, tens of thousands have been granted. host: fewer than 10 have been denied. guest: yes, whereas tens of thousands have been granted. one of the arguments for this that the court makes is that the justice department, when they come before them, they go to great lengths to make sure that those applications are sufficient. as well as the fact that often times the judges with whom the department of justice might have relationship, they say back, that is not sufficient anymore. they withdraw it and rework the application or drop the application altogether. there is an informal process at work. that is the argument on the other side, that this actually works. you do see some shifts that occur over time with some presiding judges issuing more,

and you see more denials under their tenure than under other judges. the fourth amendment point i would like to return to is the psint you raised about cas -- that was in 1967, you had an individual entering a telephone booth, and the government attached a listening device to the outside of the booth. this was a fundamentally game changing case for the supreme court in the fourth amendment jurisprudence with the idea that the fourth amendment came to protect people, not places. people, as you referred to in aur question, they have reasonable expectation of privacy, and that expectation is both -- is both objective and subjective. then there are fourth amendment requirements that attend. i would argue that in the case of all of our metadata, if you prism, google, facebook, all of these organizations, aol, these are the who's who of the

social network of of the 21st century. it is very hard to live our lives without having interactions with these entities. if you look at that and verizon and the other telecommunications providers, those cases that have been reported on, do we have a reasonable expectation of privacy that all of the things that we do online and all of the telephone calls we make, including local calls, that that information is not being collected and analyzed by the government? i think this goes to the heart of the question which is, whether these programs follow the fourth amendment. i would argue that at a certain point, yes, they do. they most certainly run contrary to the whole purpose of the foreign intelligence surveillance act, which was created and passed by congress specifically to prevent this type of activity. host: let me go back -- are you still on the line? caller: i still have some more.

let's get specific. about one hour ago, it was said that there was a brother overseas who was a muslim. he had a phone call with him. let's say it was an e-mail -- to me, that is a personal e-mail from me to my brother. i would expect that to be a private communication. if i am on facebook or twitter or something on social media, i understand how that could be in the public domain, a private e- mail between me and my brother, if he was muslim and in saudi arabia, i would expect that there should be the fourth amendment that could come into , that would confiscate that or allow the government to confiscate that. host: we will stop you there. only 10 minutes left. we will get a response. guest: a couple of points in response to that. if you think about u.s. mail and the types of protections that

are built up around u.s. mail precisely for the reasons that you note, or is a huge difference between that and how we seem to treating electronic medications. part of the reason for that goes to the idea of third-party data, that we do have a significant amount of jurisprudence built up around the idea that if you give a third party information, that have ation, you do not reasonable expectation of privacy in that information. what you are arguing is that this case is closer to the u.s. mail and further away from the way it has been considered, which is as electronic data. in that case, then there are a couple of ways the court could proceed. it could proceed under a mosaic theory of privacy, a theory we saw recently under the case of u.s. versus jones. a shadow majority in that case expressed unease about the idea of gathering massive amounts of information on american citizens and what that would amount to. the mosaic theory of privacy. or you could look to the

majority in that case, where justice scalia noted that there had been a trespass and placing gps chip on the alleged drug wife's car,his which is what that case related to. you could argue there has been a form of electronic trespass that has occurred. that offers ways to move forward. the last thing i would add is that under the fisa amendments act, section 702, it allows for the collection of this information when it is targeting non-us persons based overseas. if these programs like the ones outlined in prism, if these programs are actually targeted at non-us persons, based overseas, then congress specifically contemplated this and passed measures allowing the executive branch to do it. we end up in a position where the government appears to have been acting within the contours of the law, they follow the havedures, -- we do not

all the information yet, but given the benefit of the doubt -- that they did follow this, and yet it still rages -- raises a very troubling for commitment issues, which really run contrary to the whole purpose of the statutes enacted in the first place. host: mike lee, republican of utah, and jeff merkley put in fourth -- put forth a bill that would declassify a lot of this information. janet hook wrote about it this week, saying that a change is unlikely, quoting senator dick durbin of illinois, calling it "an uphill battle." guest: this is the same uphill battle that congress faced in 1978 good if you go back and read the debates then, you see a very content chris -- and take cantankerous debate.

arguing that that should be declassified and the information should be public. we have seen with regard to title, there is an extraordinary array of information that has been produced by the government for ordinary search warrant's that gives us great insight into how that process works. in my view, there are many ways in which that could be done for fisa, which is -- which is not currently being done. congress could introduce new legislation to protect communications of american citizens and frankly of congressional members, because it is not just the other people that this applies to, but it applies to congress as well. host: our guest is laura donahue of georgetown university. when the joins us from utah, good morning. -- linda joins us from utah, good morning. caller: i really appreciate your show. what scares me is, how can a court possibly be a balance of power like fisa? host: let's go to a tweet --

guest: the bush administration actually bypassed fisa and filed the terrorism surveillance program -- when that became public, there was an immediate response. in 2007, we saw reports that actually what happened was the government went back and got orders consistent with the protect america act -- that is one of only two review cases that have actually been released i the court of review. of review.ourt they say, not that you have gone back and gotten the order for this, this type of surveillance is acceptable. whether that is a balance of power, i would agree with you, linda. what we are seeing is a rapidly expanding executive power that is occurring in washington, d.c..

i think it is to our detriment not to put more effective oversight and more effective checks on that and to go back to the same concerns that marked the introduction of this legislation in the first place, which is what happens to a society when you have wholesale surveillance made possible for the mass accretion of information on u.s. citizens. host: in addition to her work as a professor of law at georgetown, our guest is the director of the georgetown center on national security and the law. she has studied at dartmouth college and also at the university of ulster and northern ireland. she earned her law degree from stanford university. michael is next from west virginia. good morning. caller: thank you for having me on. i would like to make a statement, the federal information security act -- i work for the government for 30 thes, and we are in electronic age and things change. fisa is a very important tool

for the federal government, for all agencies. when it is properly utilized and properly managed, it is a very effective tool. arevery few applications turned down because the applications are complete, accurate, and precise and they are applied for to a judge to get surveillance or to get an ex partake. it is very good. that is my statement. my question is, i worked for the , and ient for 30 years worked in the office of safeguards and disclosure. every single agency in the federal government has an office of safeguards and disclosure. what those offices are, when you are properly trained and managed, they are very effective tools that actually go out and review all federal agencies as to what they are doing.

who has access? why do they have access? how many people have access? what does management do? who gives access to these people to look at records and things of that nature? host: thanks for the call, michael. it is the foreign intelligence surveillance court an. office of safeguards and procedures, those offices you are referring to you functionn important within the executive branch itself. what you are suggesting in terms of the importance of fisa, michael, i would agree with you that it is terribly important that we are able to understand the types of threats we are facing and able to respond to these threats in an effective manner. it is also important for us to be able to understand what the government is doing, particularly as it impacts our citizens lives. for me, that is the basis of what it means to have a democracy.

how can you elect a representative if you do not know what they are doing? the challenge lies in finding the right balance between those. there is little question in my mind that the fisa process is opaque to the outside. it is very difficult to tell what is happening within it. when we rely on traditional oversight mechanisms like intelligence committees in congress whose hands are also then whenny regards, the court itself expresses an even greater deference to the executive branch, then other courts in the system, it does give one pause and suggests that maybe there would be other ways. these offices might be one way to do it within the executive branch. there might be other ways. there are ways in the united kingdom where they have numerous checks on surveillance authorities that we do not have in the united states. there might be numerous things that could be done to ensure that we can continue to operate effectively to counter what is a very real threat, but to do so

in a way that is cognizant of the values that animate the country. host: can you highlight the difference between re-2001 the fisa act imposed -- and post- 9/11? >> there is an enormous difference. -- guest: there is an enormous difference. -2012, there were about 8600 applications, two of which were denied in whole or in part. that is in the last five years. we have seen this increase in the use of fisa. we saw twice the number of fisa applications in 2006 as in 2001. they doubled. if you look at business records 1998-n 9098-2001, -- 2001, there is only one order granted between 1998-2001.

that was a change expanding the business records -- that was following oklahoma city. since 2001, -- actually since the patriot act -- we have seen the business records provision steadily expanding. there were only 13 in 2008. by 2011, there were 205 of these orders issued per year. in 2012, there were 212. anyone of these orders can obtain millions of records, as we saw from the order that was published in "the guardian." if that is accurate and that is the order, any one of these orders can obtain millions of records. the idea that we now have -- >host: it is a wide swath. guest: the idea that we have hundreds of these granted per year -- congress ties the court hands -- the court is required to grant these orders if certain

criteria are met -- to talk about the court being a check somehow on the executive branch, all it does is make sure that the executive branch has marked the appropriate boxes in regard to the collection of that information. host: if you were going after some person and you have a court order, how long does that order stating place? is it unlimited or is there a time limit, six months, one year? guest: for electronic surveillance, there is a time limit depending on whether the target is a u.s. person or a non-us person. if it is a u.s. person or lawful person or corporation headquartered in the united states, that qualifies as a u.s. person. there are different time limits whether it is electronic surveillance or physical search or tangible items or pen register, trap and trade. they differ depending on whether the target is a u.s. person or a non-us person. host: laura donahue of georgetown university and the author of the book "the cost of counterterrorism: power, politics, and liberty."

thank you very much for being part of the conversation. we'll continue the conversation tomorrow. house and senate return on issues of immigration and abortion. a busy week in our nations capital. we will kick things off tomorrow morning with ian swanson and rebecca switzerland -- sinderbrand. the zarate will join us, former deputy security advisor for counterterrorism. daniel weiss will talk about disaster assistance in this hurricane and tornado season. that is all tomorrow morning on c-span's "washington journal." " is coming up next. for fathers and grandfathers, we wish you a happy father's day. have a great week ahead. [captioning performed by

national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] with, "newsmakers" congressman john kline followed by hillary clinton at the clinton global initiative. later, defense secretary hagel and martin dempsey testified on the 2014 defense budget. >> this week on "newsmakers" john kline, republican and chairman of the workforce committee. >> i am really glad to be here. >> we have two reporters. all johnson, the national journal congressional reporter. >>